Case Against R3

[beginnerhunter]

SR says often that he wishes he was the only person who hunted, but that 100% of the population supported his hunting efforts. Obviously that would never work. MR seems to think it could. With that in mind, I thought R3 was about 2 things:

1) Getting more people to care about conservation.
2) Keeping an increasingly urban population from legislating or voting hunting privileges away.

Both seem equally important and somewhat dependent on one another. I've never thought R3 was really about making the woods crowded, that's just an unfortunate side effect.

I'd agree with the comments about R3 needing to be less big game focused. And to be fair, meateater heavily promotes trapping and small game hunting.

 

[Nick87]

Pretty tired of hearing every single issue becoming a race argument ... "with liberty and justice for all".

And now you will be labeled racist

 

[beginnerhunter]

As the rebuttal points out, Matt was very likely not being intentionally prejudiced against minorities. However, he closes his article with, “Let friends and family recruit the next generation of hunters. That model has worked since the beginning of time.”

There is no way I can get on board with a strategy like that, because it basically means “keep hunting white and male.” It is a strategy that has “worked” to achieve that goal for a long time.

If we as hunters hope to perpetuate a public land hunting heritage, maybe we don’t need sheer numbers, but instead we need a more representative cross-section of America in respect to gender, ethnicity, sexual orientation, etc.

When minority communities and families have hunters among them, my hope is that this will broaden the tent of conservation advocacy. As white males continually shrink as a total % of our country’s population, we really can’t expect everyone else to prop up what is perceived as a “white male” activity.

I really don't think MR is thinking "Man I wish all these minority hunters would go away." He's probably mostly encountering white flat brimmers wearing his brother's clothing brand.

I don't know where you live, but here in the south there are tons of minority hunters/anglers. I haven't seen the data, but outdoor recreation certainly isn't white and male down here (at least, not the caricature it is made out to be). Why aren't there more minority western big game hunters? Because they don't live there.

(My anecdotal experience may bias toward minority involvement since I work in a heavily minority area and talk almost daily about hunting and fishing.)

 

[Deleted member 28227]

I really don't think MR is thinking "Man I wish all these minority hunters would go away." He's probably mostly encountering white flat brimmers wearing his brother's clothing brand.

I don't know where you live, but here in the south there are tons of minority hunters/anglers. I haven't seen the data, but outdoor recreation certainly isn't white and male down here (at least, not the caricature it is made out to be). Why aren't there more minority western big game hunters? Because they don't live there.

(My anecdotal experience may bias toward minority involvement since I work in a heavily minority area and talk almost daily about hunting and fishing.)

Montana, Wyoming, Idaho... but definitely not Colorado/ New Mexico etc. CO is only 67% white.

WY has 570,000 people.

CO has 227,000 black people, 180,000 Asian, 1.2MM Hispanic.

 

[BuzzH]

I don’t see only 45-70 year old white men voting in favor of conservation as a great long term strategy.

I get what Matt’s saying, I don’t disagree you (mostly), but read Lydia’s response over your coffee tomorrow and mull it over a bit.

I read the rebuttal and I didn't see a single thing written about the resource coming first, that's my priority.

That's my point, and my only point, who has actually sat down, crunched some numbers and looked at what the RESOURCE can handle.

I'm not disagreeing that there are barriers into hunting for all kinds of people, that's also a fact. That needs to change, another fact.

The best analogy that I can come up with is lets say you have a real neat concert or sporting event. Everyone wants to come, you promote the shit out of it, you sell 50,000 tickets. There should be no barriers on who gets the tickets to the event.

Then, the day of the event comes and you find out the venue only holds 25,000. You try to accommodate all 50,000 and you're all wedged in like sardines, nobody enjoys the event and you haven't done anyone any favors.

I think we forgot to look at whether or not we had the available resource, areas that could handle additional pressure, etc. before we started promoting R3. We also failed to look at WHAT wildlife resources we had to offer, what was most readily available and where that wildlife lives...or if we even had access to it!

I'm all about a diverse workforce, diversity in hunting, diversity in politics...but, what I'm most concerned about is doing what's best for wildlife FIRST. Horse in front of the cart...

 

[beginnerhunter]

Montana, Wyoming, Idaho... but definitely not Colorado/ New Mexico etc. CO is only 67% white.

WY has 570,000 people.

CO has 227,000 black people, 180,000 Asian, 1.2MM Hispanic.

I guess Idid encounter more minority hunters in NM, didn't really think about it at the time.

 

[jakenbake]

I think both "sides" have really fair points, but I think they're largely talking past each other. On the MR side, we do have to concern ourselves with proper management of the resource. Out west, the situation (especially for NRs) is increasingly difficult and expensive. Here in the east, the problem is both urbanization (both in loss of habitat and difficulty/impossibility of access) and the culture of leasing properties making it almost impossible for new hunters to have good, easy access. But I took his overall point more as "the sky isnt falling, we dont need to bend over backwards and use resources to ensure hunting remains a viable pastime." And the numbers he has does seem to support that argument. By that argument, status quo is doing just fine and more crowding/pressure isnt needed or helpful.

However, I think the alternative argument is that the status quo isnt good enough, especially not if you care about the long-term viability of hunting. Looking at population demographics, it's really, really hard for me to disagree. Having participated in the construction of an R3 effort, it does seem like a large thrust of the effort is to broaden the base, and focusing at least some of the efforts on historically under-represented groups. This isnt a "get rid of white guys" thing (if it was, I'd be out of luck lol), but it recognizes that white guys are a shrinking piece of the pie and we are gonna need significant support from that whole pie if we're going to keep doing what we love. From that perspective, R3 is essential to the long-term continuation of our hunting heritage, even if it makes the present situation a little more sardine-like than we'd prefer.

 

[BuzzH]

I think both "sides" have really fair points, but I think they're largely talking past each other. On the MR side, we do have to concern ourselves with proper management of the resource. Out west, the situation (especially for NRs) is increasingly difficult and expensive. Here in the east, the problem is both urbanization (both in loss of habitat and difficulty/impossibility of access) and the culture of leasing properties making it almost impossible for new hunters to have good, easy access. But I took his overall point more as "the sky isnt falling, we dont need to bend over backwards and use resources to ensure hunting remains a viable pastime." And the numbers he has does seem to support that argument. By that argument, status quo is doing just fine and more crowding/pressure isnt needed or helpful.

However, I think the alternative argument is that the status quo isnt good enough, especially not if you care about the long-term viability of hunting. Looking at population demographics, it's really, really hard for me to disagree. Having participated in the construction of an R3 effort, it does seem like a large thrust of the effort is to broaden the base, and focusing at least some of the efforts on historically under-represented groups. This isnt a "get rid of white guys" thing (if it was, I'd be out of luck lol), but it recognizes that white guys are a shrinking piece of the pie and we are gonna need significant support from that whole pie if we're going to keep doing what we love. From that perspective, R3 is essential to the long-term continuation of our hunting heritage, even if it makes the present situation a little more sardine-like than we'd prefer.

Good post...but wasn't the number one reason that people either quit hunting or never start is because they had nowhere to go (no access)?

I think that if we wedge more and more people into what is available, we're going to drive people AWAY from hunting, including some of the best advocates.

IMO, we need to greatly increase access to wildlife both in places and amount of available widlife...in other words, build it and they will come. We forgot to build it first...and I'm not sure that will favor the desired results of R3.

Tough subject and if not for Matt Rinella starting the discussion, nobody would be thinking/talking about it.

 

[longbow51]

We have to be very very careful with this. We saw what happened when there was a drought in the West, only tailwaters had good flows, THE MOVIE came out, and a guide wrote "Small Fly Adventures in the West". Neale Streeks, who authored the tome, on his retirement, said, "I just got tired of doing it," Streeks said. "There are a lot more people on the river than there used to be. It's a battle every day."

And that was in 2015. Look at the Madison, or the Bighorn, or the Missouri.

Buzz has got this exactly right.

 

[jakenbake]

Good post...but wasn't the number one reason that people either quit hunting or never start is because they had nowhere to go (no access)?

I think that if we wedge more and more people into what is available, we're going to drive people AWAY from hunting, including some of the best advocates.

IMO, we need to greatly increase access to wildlife both in places and amount of available widlife...in other words, build it and they will come. We forgot to build it first...and I'm not sure that will favor the desired results of R3.

Tough subject and if not for Matt Rinella starting the discussion, nobody would be thinking/talking about it.

I strongly agree we (really meaning our wildlife agencies) need to plan on increasing access as part of R3. Without that piece, the success of the program will be very questionable. I still think the overarching goal is an important, necessary piece of ensuring the long-term continuation of our hunting heritage, but without increased attention to access and opportunity it's probably doomed to fail (wasting a bunch of money in the process...)

 

[FlatlanderAZ]

Can we all just take a second and recognize the irony in what Meateater posted?

The mainstreaming of hunting via Meateater, Fresh Tracks, podcasts etc. Has done more to generate new hunters than even the very best and most organized R3 efforts.

What Steve is saying when he says he is beginning to adopt his brother’s ideology is that he wants to hunt and fish and he wants everyone else to pay to watch him do it. I’ve listened to every podcast he has published since the beginning and they have grown more and more celebrity personality centric and more entitled with each episode. And now... it’s reached the point where Steve doesn’t even hide the fact that he wants to have unlimited awesome adventures and wants you to enjoy it from the comfort of your own home.

This is why I appreciate the Hunttalk / Fresh Tracks “Why”. To create advocates for DIY Public land hunting.

 

[Big Sky Guy]

There are barriers to entry for many....I think the rebuttal is trying to make a racial issues about something that isn't (or certainly wasn't at all even intended in the original article)

The fact is, there is only so much pressure our lakes and public lands can take...what number is the tipping point? Our lakes in northern Wisconsin and Minnesota were literally piss pounded this winter. Matt asks how may more hunters do you want at your spot....a better question might be how many more hunters/anglers can the resource take before collapse?

If enough hunters are recruited could Elk be managed with more regard to habitat carrying capacity rather than landowner tolerance?

I don’t see it as black and white, as others have mentioned in other threads on here there are A LOT of areas that are void of game (referring to Montana specifically). I absolutely think recruiting hunters is crucial, but like your saying (and what MR is trying to get across) if the resource is static it can only handle so much. I don’t think we will ever get back to the brink and hunt elk and deer to near extinction, BUT we should be trying to give the best/better hunting experiences to future generations.

If we are going to have more hunters then we will need more game at a minimum and preferably more game with more access. Maybe this is too lofty of a goal?

 

[BuzzH]

Can we all just take a second and recognize the irony in what Meateater posted?

The mainstreaming of hunting via Meateater, Fresh Tracks, podcasts etc. Has done more to generate new hunters than even the very best and most organized R3 efforts.

What Steve is saying when he says he is beginning to adopt his brother’s ideology is that he wants to hunt and fish and he wants everyone else to pay to watch him do it. I’ve listened to every podcast he has published since the beginning and they have grown more and more celebrity personality centric and more entitled with each episode. And now... it’s reached the point where Steve doesn’t even hide the fact that he wants to have unlimited awesome adventures and wants you to enjoy it from the comfort of your own home.

This is why I appreciate the Hunttalk / Fresh Tracks “Why”. To create advocates for DIY Public land hunting.

Do we need to create more hunters to create advocates for DIY Public land hunting?

I would argue that we have a small, small percentage of public land DIY hunters who are advocates...I bet less than 1% of the public land hunters we have currently, get involved in advocacy past buying a license every year.

If even 25% of the current crop of public land hunters would actually start advocating...we could make a difference in increasing wildlife numbers, increasing public lands, and in turn create more hunters and break more barriers that way.

 

[Deleted member 28227]

Can we all just take a second and recognize the irony in what Meateater posted?

The mainstreaming of hunting via Meateater, Fresh Tracks, podcasts etc. Has done more to generate new hunters than even the very best and most organized R3 efforts.

What Steve is saying when he says he is beginning to adopt his brother’s ideology is that he wants to hunt and fish and he wants everyone else to pay to watch him do it. I’ve listened to every podcast he has published since the beginning and they have grown more and more celebrity personality centric and more entitled with each episode. And now... it’s reached the point where Steve doesn’t even hide the fact that he wants to have unlimited awesome adventures and wants you to enjoy it from the comfort of your own home.

This is why I appreciate the Hunttalk / Fresh Tracks “Why”. To create advocates for DIY Public land hunting.

Unlimited adventures that per his own words, he doesn’t plan or research they just fall in his lap.

Hey Steve come hunt on our ranch/here’s a great elk spot you guys should do an episode there lol

That comment a while back came off to me as very tone def.

 

[FlatlanderAZ]

Do we need to create more hunters to create advocates for DIY Public land hunting?

I would argue that we have a small, small percentage of public land DIY hunters who are advocates...I bet less than 1% of the public land hunters we have currently, get involved in advocacy past buying a license every year.

If even 25% of the current crop of public land hunters would actually start advocating...we could make a difference in increasing wildlife numbers, increasing public lands, and in turn create more hunters and break more barriers that way.

Very fair point. Hunter should (and ultimately will have to) be advocates. Most of us could do far more than we are.

To Lydia’s point, the strength of that advocacy is not only in shear number of advocates but also the composition of those numbers.

 

[BuzzH]

Very fair point. Hunter should (and ultimately will have to) be advocates. Most of us could do far more than we are.

To Lydia’s point, the strength of that advocacy is not only in shear number of advocates but also the composition of those numbers.

I think we do both...a current hunter that is a good advocate for public lands, public wildlife, habitat, active in legislative sessions, etc. who can also recruit new hunters will teach them more than just how to kill it and grill it. Or more simply put, a good advocate is more likely to create another good advocate rather than just adding another license sale into the mix.

We need to focus at least as much, if not more effort, on making advocates of what we already have than just increasing hunter numbers.

I like the discussion.

 

[mtmuley]

We have to be very very careful with this. We saw what happened when there was a drought in the West, only tailwaters had good flows, THE MOVIE came out, and a guide wrote "Small Fly Adventures in the West". Neale Streeks, who authored the tome, on his retirement, said, "I just got tired of doing it," Streeks said. "There are a lot more people on the river than there used to be. It's a battle every day."

And that was in 2015. Look at the Madison, or the Bighorn, or the Missouri.

Buzz has got this exactly right.

Or the Bitterroot. Looks like a raft convoy. mtmuley

 

[longbow51]

Or the Bitterroot. Looks like a raft convoy. mtmuley

SOTAR hatch.

 

[mtmuley]

SOTAR hatch.

There is plenty of conversation about needing to recruit new hunters and fishermen. Plenty more about pounding the resource. mtmuley

 

[Hunting Wife]

I feel like the whole problem as @BuzzH has described in this thread is a very real Catch-22. You need more access to support more hunters, but you apparently need more hunters to get enough voice/support/money to improve access because unfortunately, few hunters turn out to be real advocates.

With regard to Matt’s article, I strongly disagree on two fronts. First, I do not think it is a viable long term strategy to respond to lost access by throwing our hands up in the air and stopping hunter recruitment. I can’t think of a better way to ensure a quicker death spiral for access and hunting. Lost access and lost habitat is only going to accelerate. Sure, you can start addressing that by squeezing out new hunters, but eventually it’s going to be you getting squeezed. Wouldn’t it be better to improve access, habitat, and wildlife to accommodate those new hunters instead? Certainly seems that would be the more effective long term strategy if we really want to preserve hunting into the future.

Second, the model of learning hunting from friends and family has most certainly not worked for many groups since the beginning of time. Given that this subject in particular has been discussed quite broadly, that comment seems incredibly ignorant. I completely understand the frustration in the HOC article.

I do think R3 efforts need to shift focus to improving access to both land and wildlife. That would benefit everyone, not just new hunters.